Former French Foreign Minister: The War against Syria was
Planned Two years before “The Arab Spring”

Israel’s support for Al Qaeda militants in Syria has
even been admitted by the mainstream press. For example, Germany’s Die Welt newspaper published a
report on June 12th on Israel’s medical treatment of

Israel’s support for Al Qaeda militants in Syria has even
been admitted by the mainstream press. For example, Germany’s
Die Welt newspaper published a report on June 12th on Israel’s
medical treatment of the Al Qaeda fighters.

By Gearóid Ó
Colmáin

In
an interview with the French TV station LCP, former French minister for
Foreign Affairs Roland Dumas said: ‘’ I’m
going to tell you something. I was in England
two years before the violence in Syria on other business. I met
with top British officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing
something in Syria.

This was
in Britain not in America. Britain was organizing an invasion of rebels
into Syria.
They even asked me, although I was no longer minister for foreign affairs, if
I would like to participate.

Naturally,
I refused, I said I’m French, that doesn’t interest me.’’

Dumas
went on give the audience a quick lesson on the real reason for the war that
has now claimed the lives of tens of thousands of people.

Roland
Dumas

‘’This
operation goes way back. It was prepared, preconceived and planned… in the
region it is important to know that this Syrian regime has a very
anti-Israeli stance.

Consequently,
everything that moves in the region- and I have this from the former Israeli
prime minister who told me ‘we’ll try to get on with our neighbours but those
who don’t agree with us will be destroyed.

It’s a
type of politics, a view of history, why not after all. But one should know
about it.’’

Dumas is
a retired French foreign minister who is obliged to use discretion when
revealing secrets which could affect French foreign policy. That is why he
made the statement ‘I am French, that doesn’t interest me’. He could
not reveal France’s
role in the British plan as he would be exposing himself to prosecution for
revealing state secrets.

There
have been many disinformation agents in the British and French press, many of
them well known ‘leftist’ war correspondents and commentators, who have tried
to pretend that Israel secretly supports Assad. Those who make such
arguments are either stupid, ignorant or deliberate disinformation agents of
NATO and Israel.

Israel’s support for Al Qaeda militants in Syria has
even been admitted by the mainstream press. For example, Germany’s Die Welt newspaper published a
report on June 12th on Israel’s medical treatment of the
Al Qaeda fighters.

Israel planned this war of annihilation years
ago in accordance with the Yinon Plan, which advocates balkanization of all
states that pose a threat to Israel.
The Zionist entity is using Britain
and France to goad the
reluctant Obama administration into sending more American troops to their
death in Syria
on behalf of Tel Aviv.

Of all
the aggressor states against Syria,
Israel
has been the quietest from the start. That is because Laurent Fabius,
Francois Holland, William Hague and David Cameron are doing their bidding by
attempting to drag Israel’s
American Leviathan into another ruinous war so that Israel can get control of the Middle East’s
energy reserves, eventually replacing the United States as the ruling state
in the world. It has also been necessary for Tel Aviv to remain silent so as
not to expose their role in the ‘revolutions’, given the fact that the
Jihadist fanatics don’t realize they are fighting for Israel.

This is
the ideology of Zionism which cares no more for Jews than it does for its
perceived enemies. The Jewish colony is determined to become a
ruling state in the Middle East in the insane delusion that this will enable
it to replace the United States
as a global hegemon, once the US
collapses fighting Israel’s
wars.

Israeli
Prime Minister once told American talk show host Bill Maher that the reason
why Israel always wins
short conflicts, while the United
States gets bogged down in endless wars.
‘’ The secret is that we have America’’,
he said.

But Israel is
itself slowly collapsing. If one excludes the enslaved Palestinian
population, the Jewish state still has the highest level of poverty in the
developed world with more and more Jews choosing to leave the ‘promised’
land, a garrison state led by mad men, an anti-Semitic entity threatening to
engulf the world in war and destruction. Israel cares no more about its
own working class Jews than any other ethnic community.

In fact,
if the Likudnik crooks running the Israeli colony get their way, working
class Israelis will be among the first to pay as they are conscripted to
fight terrorists created by their own government. With orthodox Jews
protesting in the streets of New York
against Israel and Haredi
Jewish minority opposing Israel’s
rampant militarism, Zionism is coming under increased attack from Jewish
religious authorities and non-Zionist Jews both inside and outside of the
occupied territories.

This is
not the first time that Roland Dumas has spoken out against wars of
aggression waged by successive French regimes. In 2011 he revealed that he
had been asked by the United States
when he was foreign minister in the Mitterrand administration to organize the
bombing of Libya.
On that occasion the French refused to cooperate. Dumas, a lawyer by
profession, offered to defend Colonel Gaddafi, at the International Criminal
Court in the event of his arrest by Nato.

Dumas
was also vocal in condemning France’s brutal neo-colonial bombing of the
Ivory Coast earlier in 2011, were death squads and terrorists similar to
those later deployed in Libya and Syria were unleashed upon the Ivoirian
population in order to install a IMF puppet dictator Alassane Quattara in
power. Gbagbo was described as one of the greatest African leaders of the
past 20 years by Jean Ziegler, sociologist and former member of the Advisory
Committee of the UN Human Rights Council.

Gbagbo
had plans to nationalize banks and wrest control of the country’s currency
from the colonial finance institutions in Paris. He also wanted to roll back many of
the worst effects of IMF restructuring by nationalizing industries and
creating a functioning, universal free health service. All of this threatened
the interests of French corporations in the former French colony. So, the
Parisian oligarchy went to work to find a suitable replacement as caretaker
of their Ivoirian colony.

They
sent in armed terrorist gangs, or ‘rebel’s in the doublespeak of imperialism,
who murdered all before them while the French media blamed president Gbagbo
for the violence that ensued. Gbagbo and Gaddafi had opposed Africom, the
Pentagon’s plan to recolonize Africa. That
was another reason for the 2011 bombing of their two African countries.

The
formula is always the same. Imperialism backs ‘rebels’, whenever its
interests are threatened by regimes that love their country more than foreign
corporations. One should not forgot that during the Spanish Civil War
of 1936, General Franco and his cronies were also ‘rebels’ and they, like
their counterparts in Libya in 2011, were bombed to power by foreign powers,
replacing a progressive, republican administration with fascism.

There
are pro-Israeli fanatics in France
who have used the analogy of the Spanish Civil War as justification for
intervention in Libya and Syria. The
pseudo-philosopher Henry Bernard Levy is one of them. Of course, the
ignoramus Levy doesn’t realize that the reason France,
England and the USA did not
officially intervene in the Spanish Civil War is because they were covertly
helping the ‘rebels’ from the start. They enabled arms shipments to the
Francoist ‘rebels’ while preventing arms deliveries to the Spanish
government, who, like Syria today, were helped by Moscow. Anyone who has
studied the Spanish Civil War knows that all the imperialist countries wanted
Franco as a bulwark against communism.

There is
nothing imperialism loves more than a rebel without a cause. What imperialism
hates, however, are revolutionaries. That is why the ‘rebels’ which
imperialism sends into other countries to colonize them on behalf of foreign
banks and corporations, have to be marketed as ‘revolutionaries’ in order to
assure the support of the Monty Python brigade of petty-bourgeois, ‘ leftist’
dupes such as Democracy Now! and their ilk.

Dumas is
not the only top French official to denounce the New World Order.
Former French ambassador to Syria Michel Raimbaud wrote a book in 2012
entitled ‘Le Soudan dans tous les états’, where he revealed how Israel
planned and instigated a civil war in South Sudan in order to balkanize a
country led by a pro-Palestinian government. He also exposed the pro-Israeli
media groups and ‘human rights’ NGOS who created the ‘humanitarian’ narrative
calling for military intervention by the United States in the conflict.

There are
many more retired French officials who are speaking out about the ruinous
policies of this French government, including the former head of French
domestic intelligence Yves Bonnet. There have also been reports of dissent in
the French armed forces and intelligence apparatus.

After
the assassination of Colonel Gaddafi in October 2011, the former French
ambassador to Libya Christian Graeff told French radio station France Culture
that it was responsible for the diffusion of lies and war propaganda on behalf
of Nato throughout the war. Graeff also warned the broadcasters that
such disinformation could only work on the minds of serfs but not in a
country of free minds.

The
power of the Israeli lobby in France
is a subject rarely discussed in polite circles. In France there
is a law against questioning or denial of the holocaust. However, denial of
the Korean holocaust, Guatemalan holocaust, Palestinian holocaust, Indonesian
holocaust and the dozens of other US/Israeli supported genocides is not only
perfectly legal but is the respectable norm.

The same
lobby which introduced the Loi Gayssot in 1990, effectively ending freedom of
expression in France, would also like to ban any independent investigations
of genocides whose narratives they have written, such as the Rwanda genocide,
where Israel played a key role in supporting the ‘rebels’ led by Paul Kagame,
who invaded Rwanda from Uganda from 1991 to 1994, leading to the genocide of
both Tutus and Tutsis. Many serious scholars have written about the Rwandan
genocide, which the Israel
lobby repeatedly uses as a case study to justify ‘humanitarian’ intervention
by Western powers. The Zionist thought police would like to see such
authors prosecuted for ‘negating’ imperialism’s disgusting lies on African
conflicts.

Now, the
Israeli Lobby is forcing the (their) French government to prosecute twitter
messages which the lobby deems ‘anti-Semitic’. This is one further step
towards the creation of a totalitarian state where any criticism of
imperialism, foreign wars, racism, oppression, perhaps eventually capitalism
itself could fall under the rubric of ‘anti-Semitism’.

These
people are sick, and those who cow down to them are sicker. Perhaps the
etymology of sickness, a word cognate with the German Sicherheit (security)
according to dictionary.com,
is not a coincidence. For what is particularly sick about our society is the
cult of security, endless surveillance, ubiquitous cameras, the cult of
the all seeing eye, the prurient gaze as part of the incessant discourse on
terrorism by those who specialize in the training of the very terrorists they
claim to be protecting us from. Whether or not the words security and
sickness are linguistically related, they are certainly cognate in a
philosophical sense.

Roland
Dumas and others like him should be highly commended for having to guts to
say what so many others are too morally corrupt, too weak and cowardly to
admit.

As the
French government and its media agencies drum up hysteria for war on Syria, Roland Dumas, now in the twilight of
his years, is warning people of the consequences of not understanding where Israel is
leading the world. Will enough people heed the warning?

Context One: It is 1971 and the United States is mired in a losing war in Vietnam.
Thousands of young American soldiers are coming back to the U.S. in coffins
or physically and psychologically maimed. Scenes of war can be witnessed
nightly on the evening news. In the midst of this mayhem the American
military analyst Daniel Ellsberg gives the New York Times a copy of a
classified analysis of the war entitled, “United States – Vietnam Relations,
1945-1967” aka the “Pentagon Papers.” The Nixon administration then sought to
prevent the publication of this report through a court injunction. Ultimately
the Supreme Court overturned the injunction in a 6-3 ruling that favored the
public’s right to know. The government also attempted to prosecute Ellsberg
under the 1917 Espionage Act for releasing classified information to the
public. That was thrown out of court because in making their case, government
agents had gathered information through an illegal wiretap. Subsequently, the
media widely covered the Pentagon Papers and its demoralizing description of
how the U.S.
was fighting the war. It can be argued that this reporting helped turn the
tide of public opinion against the slaughter in Vietnam.

Context Two: It is 2012-2013 and the United States
is waging a “War on Terror.” This is the result of highly destructive
terrorist attacks that occurred a dozen years earlier on September 11, 2001.
Both these attacks, the lies and misplaced aggression of the Bush
administration that followed, and the skewed media coverage over the
intervening years, have sensitized the country to the issue of security. In
this environment the government was able to put in place legislation such as
the Patriot
Act that allows it to, among other things, broadly increase its
powers of surveillance both of American citizens and foreigners, and to
develop (with the aid of Israeli companies) a secret, massive information
gathering program, code named PRISM, and operated by the National
Security Agency (NSA). It is also within this environment that a
series of whistleblowers revealed to the public both the brutal nature of U.S. warfare in Iraq,
Afghanistan
and elsewhere, and the widespread spying regime evolved by the American
government. Many of these whistleblowers have been charged with felonies and
labeled traitors.

Part II – The Whistleblowers Aim: Making
the Citizens Aware

Between
1971 and 2012-2013 a lot has changed. However, the seminal difference
is that in 1971 a good number of American citizens were being traumatized by
the death and maiming of their relatives in a losing war that was publicized
in a relatively objective way. In 2012-2013 that factor is missing
because the “War on Terror” does not entail a military draft, has resulted in
relatively few U.S.
casualties, and is brought to the American people by a managed media. This
allows the public to assume what is, in truth, its “normal” default position:
an everyday indifference to national government behavior. The general
citizenry is at once uninterested in what the federal government is doing as
long as they feel no immediate negative impact (this is particularly true of
foreign policy), and naively ready to accept the government’s protestations
that it is acting in their best interests.

Thus,
it is no doubt true that heroes (and indeed they are heroes) such as
Pvt. Bradley Manning and NSA employee Edward
Snowden, decided to release massive amounts of secret government data in
order “to make their fellow citizens aware of
what their government is doing in the dark.” However, what the
historical record suggests is that, under most circumstances, only a minority of the general population will care.
Thus, in the case of the United
States, the effectiveness of
whistleblowers may be more successfully tested in the law courts wherein
meaningful judgment can be rendered on the behavior of the other branches of
government, than in the court of public opinion. However, this judicial arena
is also problematic because it depends on the changing mix of politics and
ideology of those sitting in judgment rather than any consistent adherence to
principles. In 1971 judicial judgment went for Ellsberg. In 2013, men
like Manning and Snowden probably do not have a snowball’s chance in hell.

Part
III – The Government’s Aim: Maintain the Bureaucratic Rules

The
existence of men like Manning, Snowden and a handful of others demonstrates
that there are employees of the government who have a superior sense of
morality as well as the courage to act on their principles. However, the
numbers are very small and they are invariably considered as dangerous
mistakes within the system. What of the rest of the government’s personnel?

It
is important to understand that the vast majority of government employees do
not act, except in the most abstract and idealistic way, as citizens of the United States.
They are much more immediately, if you will, citizens of the bureaucracies
within which they are embedded. This is not an unusual situation. People tend
to identify with their local community and for some this may include a strong
identification with their place of employment. Also, bureaucracies are
notable for setting their own rules and enforcing them as if they were forms
of law. Employees are regularly “oriented” to their bureaucracy’s
institutional worldview. At one time the union movement provided a
potential check to this process because class identity was a viable
competitor to bureaucratic identity. But the union movement within the United States
is very weak. Particularly within secretive organizations such as the
CIA or the NSA, competitive points of view are carefully weeded out.
Simultaneously, the value set on loyalty to the organization and its rules is
very high. Such organizations come first, even before family and friends.

Even
most elected politicians are fated to become “organization men or women”
wherein their first loyalty lies not with the electorate or the Constitution,
but to their political parties. If they are part of the “select” group of
Senators and Congresspersons associated with the intelligence agencies they
will absorb their secretive orientation as well. Take Senator Diane Feinstein
(D-CA) who is head of the Senate Intelligence Committee. She has insisted on the need and the worth of
massive spying by the NSA whereby the “megadata” of almost everything that
goes through the internet, and a lot that goes through the phone lines, is
collected and stored, placing all content in a state of ready availability to
the government if it chooses to look at it. She, and others like NSA Director
James Clapper, claim that this enormous gathering up of personal data has helped “foil multiple terrorist plots” against
Americans and others. Those who have made public this secret process are,
according to Feinstein, “traitors.”

In
a real sense, Feinstein has metamorphosed into the loyal citizen of a
bureaucracy that has relegated to itself the right to define both security
and the public’s need to know. It does not appear to concern Feinstein that
this bureaucracy is determined to function in a way that will allow no viable
accountability to anyone beyond its own community.

In
contrast to Feinstein, William Binney, former head of the NSA’s global
digital data program, claims that having such a huge data base has meant the
information overwhelms the analysts, causing the secret PRISM program to
become “dysfunctional.” Perhaps that is why a few in the Senate,
like Mark Udall of Colorado, say that they
are not “convinced that the collection of this vast
trove of data has led to disruption of plots against the U.S.” Thus
the “protecting the American people” justification is debatable.

Even
if it turns out that this information orgy has assisted in foiling a limited
number of plots, it is not a practicable approach to threat prevention. What
is? Changing the policies and behaviors that have caused much of the
terrorist threats in the first place. Do that, and you won’t need to
stockpile everyone’s communications from now to the end of time.

Part
IV – The President

One
of the best examples of the conversion of an American from a servant of the
citizenry to a servant of the government bureaucracy is President Barak
Obama. As Glenn Greenwald points out, during President Obama’s 2008
campaign “openness and transparency” were central issues. Obama denounced
President Bush’s regime as “one of the most secretive administrations in our
nation’s history,” and added “it is no coincidence” that such a
secrecy-obsessed presidency “has favored special interests and pursued
policies that could not stand up to the sunlight.” He vowed: “as president,
I’m going to change that.” To that end he pledged to protect whistleblowers
and called them, “the best source of information about waste, fraud, and
abuse in government,” saying that “such acts of courage and patriotism . .
. should be encouraged rather than stifled.”

Then
he won the 2008 election. All of a sudden his constituents ceased to be
the voters and became instead institutionalized aspects of the government
system: the bureaucracy, the Democratic Party and a host of special
interests. Thus, it did not take long for his tone to change.
Surrounded now by bureaucrats and party men whose devotion was to
something other than the Constitution, the massive invasion of privacy represented
by the vacuuming up of all information available on web became “necessary for national security and well within the
bounds of the law.” That is, the Bush era laws that Obama once deplored. Now
Obama is prosecuting the whistleblowers and protecting the George W. Bush era
criminals.

Part
V – Conclusion

This
metamorphosis into participants in an amoral system seems to be the fate of
most men and women elected to national office. They join an organization
assumed wiser then the citizenry because it knows more than they do and, more
often than not, it does its learning in secret, clandestine ways. Notions
such as transparency and the behaviors of whistleblowers, which sounded so
right on the campaign trail, now take on opposite connotations in the
environment of bureaucracy. Principles that once were worthy of protection
now must be “balanced” against procedures and policies too valuable to be
exposed to daylight.

This
is a standard scenario for the erosion of the rights, ideals and principles
that make a democracy worthy of its name. As Thomas Drake, another
whistleblower, recently put it “What does the NSA need with a 100 million phone
records? We are losing the foundation of innocence until proven guilty. The
assumption of innocence no longer exists in a surveillance state.” Neither
does a Constitution with a Fourth Amendment. Neither does habeas corpus or
due process. All of those are things of value in the world of democratic men
and women. In the world of the National Security Agency, they are all
conditional to the needs of a system with very different rules.

************

About the Author

DR.
LAWRENCE DAVIDSON is a history professor at West
Chester University
in Pennsylvania.
He is the author of Foreign
Policy
Inc.: Privatizing America’s National Interest;America’s Palestine: Popular and Offical Perceptions
from Balfour to Israeli Statehood; and Islamic Fundamentalism. His academic work is
focused on the history of American foreign relations with the Middle East. He also teaches courses in the history of
science and modern European intellectual history.

BB: Slideshows

BB: Poetry and Fiction - Click on picture

BB: Quotes from the TALMUD

BB: Talmudic Quotes

RESPONSE: The above quote is a wrong inference from a fiscal law in Shulchan Oruch, Choshen Mishpat 405.3, that relates to times when slavery was a standard and accepted practice across the world.

BLOGGER: Response is BS. Even during the time mentioned above, the quote of Talmud, which is supposed to be a holy book, should not be as it is.

CLAIM 02: "It is permitted to take the body and the life of a Gentile." Sepher ikkarim III c 25.

RESPONSE: This is a misquotation. Rabbi Yosef Albo (the author) was asked by a Christian thinker about seeming injustice of the laws of Judaism dealing with charging interest on a loan. (According to Deuteronomy 23:20 and 23:21, a Jew is not allowed to lend with interest to another Jew, but may do so to a Gentile).

R. Albo answers: The "Gentile" or "heathen" in the above passage refers to idolater, who refuses to keep seven Noahide laws. The laws are universal for all mankind: A) prohibition of idolatry, B) prohibition of blasphemy, C) prohibition of murder, D) prohibition of immorality and promiscuity, E) prohibition of theft, F) establishment of judicial system, G) prohibition of cruelty to animals.

Such a person, who does not respect other's rights, places himself apart from human community and therefore can expect to be treated according to his own rules. He is a threat to everyone around and hence if somebody kills him, that person is not charged. On the contrary, even according to non-Jewish philosophers in those days (14th and 15th century, Spain), as R Albo brings, such a person should be killed. So it is regarding money matters: the prohibition of taking interest, that applies to everybody, including a non-Jew who keeps the Noahide laws (as R. Albo mentions a few sentences earlier), do not apply to him.

BLOGGER: What a crackpot full of steaming shit. First, an idolater is not obliged to follow the Nohide laws. Second, even if he is, but violates them all or part thereof, he does not deserve to be killed by someone. Third, one can not just kill someone who has a different belief. Anybody is free to believe in whatever he wants as far as no harm isdone to those living around him when the belief is carried out into action.

CLAIM 03: "It is the law to kill anyone who denies the Torah. The Christians belong to the denying ones of theTorah." Coschen hamischpat 425 Hagah 425.

RESPONSE: This is from the Shulcan Aruch and applies to killing Jewish heretics. The following line in this passage is that this law does not apply to anyone non-Jewish and it is forbidden to harm any gentile. The Jewish heretics are people which are a potential cause of harm and trouble to the Jewish nation. The penalty is designed to demonstrate the severity with which heretical views were considered, rather than a practical penalty as such penalties were rarely imposed. E.S./David S. Maddison.

BLOGGER: The quote says, “anyone who denies the Torah”, then immediately followed by, “The Christians belong to the denying ones of the Torah.” I cannot find any reference to Jewish heretics, or “it is forbidden to harm any gentile”. Response is nothing but hogwash.

BB: Monthly news of rabbis sexual perversion & other crimes.

Click on picture!

BB: Pervert Rabbis

BB: Cases of shame

CASES OF SHAME: What is a rabbi?

The word "Rabbi" refers to one of the ancient scribes - supposedly a holy man - who participated in writing the "Talmud". In Arabic, which is a Semitic language and a cousin to Hebrew, the word is"Rabbanie", or "Rabbie", means a godly man. My question is, are they really godly? I strongly doubt that. Below are some of their news…

Israel's new Ashkenazi chief rabbi case: JERUSALEM: Israel's new Ashkenazi chief rabbi is facing growing calls to step down amid allegations of misconduct. The allegations center on sexual harassment charges against Yona Metzger, as well as charges that he engaged in fraud and is not qualified for the post. Aides to Metzger have rejected the allegations as a smear campaign fueled by political rivals.

Metzger and his Sephardi counterpart, Rabbi Shlomo Amar, were elected as Israel's chief rabbis April 14 by a 150-member public committee. Since then, however,opposition to Metzger has grown. In the latest development, a Tel Aviv accountant filed a petition Monday in the High Court of Justice challenging Metzger's appointment. It will be heard by a three-judge panel.

The petition claims that allegations of fraud and other improprieties involving Metzger were not fully investigated because of his 1998 pledge not to stand for chief rabbi of Tel Aviv. Metzger's spokesman, Roni Rimon, told the Israeli daily Ma'ariv that the petition was full of "lies, lies and more lies" produced by "professional slanderers.". Metzger had been accused of forging witnesses' signatures on marriage contracts and unlawfully demanding payment for performing weddings, the daily Ha'aretz reported. As a result of the allegations, Metzger's permit to serve as a chief rabbi of a major city was revoked. However, it was reinstated several months later after a hearing before three senior Israeli rabbis -- including Eliyahu Bakshi - Doron, a former Sephardi chief rabbi -- who accepted Metzger's explanations and his commitment to leave the Tel Aviv race, the paper said.

The petition also argues that the Metzger, 50, who previously was rabbi of north Tel Aviv, was not qualified tofill the chief rabbi's duties as head of the country's rabbinic court system because he never had been a religious judge or rabbi of a major city. Thepetition maintained that the elections committee for the chief rabbi was not adequately informed of the misconduct allegations against Metzger. In related development, Ma'ariv recently published what it said were sexual harassment allegations involving Metzger. Three weeks before Metzger's election as chiefrabbi, the paper reported, it learned of complaints from four adult men whoclaimed Metzger had touched their arms, legs and chests and expressed admiration for their muscular physiques.

Park Avenue rabbi Case:A prominent Park Avenue rabbi had a mistress nearly half his age sign a bizarre cohabitation contract - promising she’d get liposuction, become better educated and continue their already hot-and-heavy sexual relationship in exchange for half his house, the woman claims in a bombshell lawsuit. Janet Pizzo says she had a seven-year affair with the married Metropolitan Synagogue Rabbi Joel Goor - which included recurring steamy sex in his rabbinical office while he lied to his wife about his whereabouts. But their courtship crumbled when she suspected him of having another girlfriend, and he’s since become vindictive. She even caught him on audio tape threatening to prance around their Bronxhome naked in front of her 17-year-old daughter.

You’ve got to move,” Goor says, according to an audio tape reviewed by The Post. “This is my house . . . I’m allowed to walk around nude in my house. So you better tell [her daughter] Mary,” Goor told Pizzo.“I’m allowed to walk round this house . . . and I’m going to.”. Goor’s lawyer declined to comment on the allegations. “I truly loved this guy, I really did,” said a weepy Pizzo, 48, complaining how the 73-year-old Man of God locked her out of their bedroom, removed the cushions from her couch and vowed to unplug the refrigerator. http://www.canonist.com/?p=1245

Zionist Israel

1.
"There is a huge gap between us (Jews) and our enemies, not just in
ability but in morality, culture, sanctity of life, and conscience. They are
our neighbors here, but it seems as if at a distance of a few hundred meters
away, there are people who do not belong to our continent, to our world, but
actually belong to a different galaxy." Israeli president Moshe Katsav.
The Jerusalem
Post, May 10, 2001

2.
"The Palestinians are like crocodiles, the more you give them meat, they
want more".... Ehud Barak, Prime Minister of Israel at the time - August
28, 2000. Reported in the Jerusalem
Post August 30, 2000

3.
" [The Palestinians are] beasts walking on two legs." Menahim Begin,
speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the
Beasts". New Statesman, 25 June 1982.

4.
"The Palestinians" would be crushed like grasshoppers ... heads
smashed against the boulders and walls." Isreali Prime Minister (at
the time) in a speech to Jewish settlers New York Times April 1, 1988

5.
"When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it
will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle." Raphael
Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defence Forces, New York Times, 14 April
1983.

6.
"How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return
them to." Golda Maier, March 8, 1969.

7.
"There was no such thing as Palestinians, they never existed." Golda
Maier Israeli Prime Minister June 15, 1969

8.
"The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967
and that Israel
was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed
after the war." Israeli General Matityahu Peled, Ha'aretz, 19 March 1972.

9.
David Ben Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister): "If I were an Arab
leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken
their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest
them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti - Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler,
Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They see
but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they
accept that?" Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish
Paradox), pp121.

10.
Ben Gurion also warned in 1948 : "We must do everything to insure they (
the Palestinians) never do return." Assuring his fellow Zionists that
Palestinians will never come back to their homes. "The old will die and
the young will forget."

11.
"We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live
here as slaves." Chairman Heilbrun of the Committee for the Re-election of
General Shlomo Lahat, the mayor of Tel Aviv, October 1983.

12.
"Every time we do something you tell me America
will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear:
Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people,
control America,
and the Americans know it." - Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon,
October 3, 2001, to Shimon Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio. (Certainly
the FBI's cover-up of the Israeli spy ring/phone
tap scandal suggests that Mr. Sharon may not have been joking.)

13.
"We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one
centimeter of Eretz Israel...
Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until
the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours." Rafael Eitan, Chief of
Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces - Gad Becker, Yediot Ahronot 13 April 1983,
New York Times 14 April 1983.

14.
"We must do everything to ensure they [the Palestinian refugees] never do
return" David Ben-Gurion, in his diary, 18 July 1948, quoted in Michael
Bar Zohar's Ben-Gurion: the Armed Prophet, Prentice-Hall, 1967, p. 157.

15." ... we should prepare to go over to the offensive with the aim of
smashing Lebanon,
Trans-jordan and Syria...
The weak point in the Arab coalition is Lebanon [for] the Moslem regime is
artificial and easy to undermine. A Christian state should be established...
When we smash the [Arab] Legions strength and bomb Amman,
we will eliminate Transjordan, too, and then Syria will fall. If Egypt still dares to fight on, we shall bomb Port Said, Alexandria, and Cairo." " David
Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff. From Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by
Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte,
New York 1978.

16.
"We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and
the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee
of its Arab population." Israel
Koenig, "The Koenig Memorandum"

17."Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even
know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography
books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are
not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the
place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in
the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country
that did not have a former Arab population." Moshe Dayan, address to the
Technion, Haifa,
reported in Haaretz, April 4, 1969.

18.
"We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his
question, What is to be done with the Palestinian population?' Ben-Gurion waved
his hand in a gesture which said 'Drive them out!'" Yitzhak Rabin, leaked
censored version of Rabin memoirs, published in the New York Times, 23 October
1979.

19.Rabin's description of the conquest of Lydda, after the completion of Plan
Dalet. "We shall reduce the Arab population to a community of woodcutters
and waiters" Uri Lubrani, PM Ben-Gurion's special adviser on Arab Affairs,
1960. From "The Arabs in Israel"
by Sabri Jiryas.

20.
"There are some who believe that the non-Jewish population, even in a high
percentage, within our borders will be more effectively under our surveillance;
and there are some who believe the contrary, i.e., that it is easier to carry
out surveillance over the activities of a neighbor than over those of a tenant.
[I] tend to support the latter view and have an additional argument:...the need
to sustain the character of the state which will henceforth be Jewish...with a
non-Jewish minority limited to 15 percent. I had already reached this
fundamental position as early as 1940 [and] it is entered in my diary."
Joseph Weitz, head of the Jewish Agency's Colonization Department. From Israel: an Apartheid State
by Uri Davis, p.5.

21.
"Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can to
enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay ours...
Everything we don't grab will go to them." Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign
Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet
Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.

22.
"It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly
and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The
first of these is that there is no Zionism,colonialization or Jewish State
without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands."
Yoram Bar Porath, Yediot Aahronot, of 14 July 1972.

23.
"Spirit the penniless population across the frontier by denying it
employment... Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor
must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly." Theodore Herzl, founder
of the World Zionist Organization, speaking of the Arabs of Palestine,Complete
Diaries, June 12, 1895 entry.

25.
"We Jews, we are the destroyers and will remain the destroyers. Nothing
you can do will meet our demands and needs. We will forever destroy because we
want a world of our own." (You Gentiles, by Jewish Author Maurice Samuels,
p. 155).

26.
"We will have a world government whether you like it or not. The only
question is whether that government will be achieved by conquest or
consent." (Jewish Banker Paul Warburg, February 17, 1950, as he testified
before the U.S. Senate).

27.
"We will establish ourselves in Palestine
whether you like it or not...You can hasten our arrival or you can equally
retard it. It is however better for you to help us so as to avoid our
constructive powers being turned into a destructive power which will overthrow
the world." (Chaim Weizmann, Published in "Judische Rundschau,"
No. 4, 1920)

28.
"Our race is the Master Race. We are divine gods on this planet. We are as
different from the inferior races as they are from insects. In fact, compared
to our race, other races are beasts and animals, cattle at best. Other races
are considered as human excrement. Our destiny is to rule over the inferior
races. Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leader with a rod of iron. The
masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves." - Israeli prime
Minister Menachem Begin in a speech to the Knesset [Israeli Parliament] quoted
by Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the Beasts," New Statesman, June 25,
1982

29.
"Tell me, do the evil men of this world have a bad time? They hunt and
catch whatever they feel like eating. They don't suffer from indigestion and
are not punished by Heaven. I want Israel to join that club. Maybe the
world will then at last begin to fear us instead of feeling sorry. Maybe they
will start to tremble, to fear our madness instead of admiring our nobility.
Let them tremble; let them call us a mad state. Let them understand that we are
a savage country, dangerous to our surroundings, not normal, that we might go
wild, that we might start World War Three just like that, or that we might one
day go crazy and burn all the oil fields in the Middle East. Even if you'll
prove to me that the present war is a dirty immoral war, I don't care. We shall
start another war, kill and destroy more and more. And do you know why it is
all worth it? Because it seems that this war has made us more unpopular among
the civilized world.We'll hear no more of that nonsense about the unique Jewish
morality. No more talk about a unique people being a light upon the nations. No
more uniqueness and no more sweetness and light. Good riddance." -- Former
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon

30.
"The Modern Age is the Jewish Age, and the twentieth century, in
particular, is the Jewish Century." -Yuri Slezkine, Professor of History
at University of California,
Berkeley, "The Jewish Century"; Princeton University Press

31.
"What shocks and worries me is the narrow-mindedness and the
shortsightedness of our military leaders. They seem to presume that the State
of Israel may or even must-behave in the realm of international relations
according to the laws of the jungle- -the long chain of false incidents and
hostilities we have invented, and so many clashes we have provoked;" - From
Diary of Moshe Sharett, former Primer Minister of Israel in Livia Rokach,
Israel's Sacred Terrorism published 980

32.Hebrew essayist Achad Ha-Am, after paying a visit to Palestine in 1891:
"Abroad we are accustomed to believe that Israel is almost empty; nothing
is grown here and that whoever wishes to buy land could come here and buy what
his heart desires. In reality, the situation is not like this. Throughout the
country it is difficult to find cultivable land which is not already
cultivated."

33.The Balfour Declaration to Baron Rothchild, on the 2nd of November, 1917:
"His Majesty's Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine
of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to
facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that
nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of
existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political
status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

34.Lord Sydenham, Hansard, House of Lords, 21 June 1922: "If we are going to
admit claims on conquest thousands of years ago, the whole world will have to
be turned upside down."

35.1923:Vladimir Jabotinsky, The Iron Wall, "Zionist colonization must
either be terminated or carried out against the wishes of the native
population. This colonization can, therefore, be continued and make progress
only under the protection of a power independent of the native population - an
iron wall, which will be in a position to resist the pressure to the native
population. This is our policy towards the Arabs..."

36.
Vladimir Jabotinsky, founder of Revisionist Zionism (precursor of Likud), The
Iron Wall, 1923: "A voluntary reconciliation with the Arabs is out of the
question either now or in the future. If you wish to colonize a land in which
people are already living, you must provide a garrison for the land, or find
some rich man or benefactor who will provide a garrison on your behalf. Or
else-or else, give up your colonization, for without an armed force which will
render physically impossible any attempt to destroy or prevent this colonization,
colonization is impossible, not difficult, not dangerous, but IMPOSSIBLE!...
Zionism is a colonization adventure and therefore it stands or falls by the
question of armed force. It is important... to speak Hebrew, but,
unfortunately, it is even more important to be able to shoot - or else I am
through with playing at colonizing."

38.
Joseph Weitz, head of the Jewish Agency's Colonization Department in 1940. From
"A Solution to the Refugee Problem": "Between ourselves it must
be clear that there is no room for both peoples together in this country. We
shall not achieve our goal if the Arabs are in this small country. There is no
other way than to transfer the Arabs from here to neighboring countries - all
of them. Not one village, not one tribe should be left."

39.Israeli official Arthur Lourie in a letter to Walter Eytan, director general of
the Israeli Foreign Ministry (ISA FM 2564/22). From Benny Morris, "The
Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem 1947-49", p. 297: "...if
people become accustomed to the large figure and we are actually obliged to
accept the return of the refugees, we may find it difficult, when faced with
hordes of claimants, to convince the world that not all of these formerly lived
in Israeli territory. It would, in any event, seem desirable to minimize the
numbers...than otherwise."

40.David Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff. From Ben- Gurion, A
Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte,
New York 1978: "We should
prepare to go over to the offensive. Our aim is to smash Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, and Syria. The weak
point is Lebanon,
for the Moslem regime is artificial and easy for us to undermine. We shall establish
a Christian state there, and then we will smash the Arab Legion, eliminate
Trans-Jordan; Syria
will fall to us. We then bomb and move on and take Port
Said, Alexandria
and Sinai."

41.BenDavid -Gurion, one of the father founders of Israel,
described Zionist aims in 1948: "A Christian state should be established
[in Lebanon],
with its southern border on the Litani river. We will make an alliance with it.
When we smash the Arab Legion's strength and bomb Amman,
we will eliminate Transjordan too, and then Syria will fall. If Egypt still dares to fight on, we shall bomb Port Said, Alexandria and Cairo... And in this
fashion, we will end the war and settle our forefathers' account with Egypt, Assyria, and Aram"

42.
[Begin, and Yitzhak Shamir who were members of the party became Prime
Ministers.] Albert Einstein, Hanna Arendt and other prominent Jewish Americans,
writing in The New York Times, protest the visit to America of Menachem Begin,
December 1948: "Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our time
is the emergence in the newly created State of Israel of the Freedom Party
(Herut), a political party closely akin in its organization, method, political
philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties."

43.Martin Buber, Jewish Philosopher, addressed Prime Minister Ben Gurion on the
moral character of the state of Israel
with reference to the Arab refugees in March 1949. "We will have to face
the reality that Israel
is neither innocent, nor redemptive. And that in its creation, and expansion;
we as Jews, have caused what we historically have suffered; a refugee
population in Diaspora."

44.Moshe Dayan (Israel
Defense and Foreign Minister), on February 12 1952. Radio "Israel.":
"It lies upon the people's shoulders to prepare for the war, but it lies
upon the Israeli army to carry out the fight with the ultimate object of
erecting the Israeli Empire."

45.Martin Buber, to a NewYork audience, Jewish
Newsletter, June 2, 1958: "When we [followers of the prophetic Judaism]
returned to Palestine...the
majority of Jewish people preferred to learn from Hitler rather than from
us."

46.Aba Eban (the Israeli Foreign Minister) stated arrogantly. New York Times June
19, 1967: "If the General Assembly were to vote by 121 votes to 1 in favor
of "Israel"
returning to the armistice lines-- (pre June 1967 borders) "Israel"
would refuse to comply with the decision."

47.Dr. Israel Shahak, Chairperson of the Israeli League for Human and Civil
Rights, and a survivor of the Bergen Belsen concentration camp, Commenting on
the Israeli military's Emergency Regulations following the 1967 War. Palestine, vol. 12,
December 1983: "Hitler's legal power was based upon the 'Enabling Act',
which was passed quite legally by the Reichstag and which allowed the Fuehrer
and his representatives, in plain language, to be what they wanted, or in legal
language, to issue regulations having the force of law. Exactly the same type
of act was passed by the Knesset [Israeli's Parliament] immediately after the
1067 conquest granting the Israeli governor and his representatives the power
of Hitler, which they use in Hitlerian manner."

48.
Joseph Weitz, Director of the Jewish National Fund, the Zionist agency charged
with acquiring Palestinian land, Circa 194. Machover Israca, January 5, 1973
/p.2: "The only solution is Eretz Israel
[Greater Israel], or at least Western Eretz Israel
[all the land west of Jordan River], without
Arabs. There is no room for compromise on this point ... We must not leave a
single village, not a single tribe."

49.
Israeli Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg, Inferring that killing isn't murder if the
victim is Gentile. Jerusalem Post, June 19,1989: "Jewish blood and a goy's
[gentile's] blood are not the same."

50.Benyamin Netanyahu, then Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister, former Prime Minister
of Israel, tells students at Bar Ilan University,
From the Israeli journal Hotam, November 24, 1989: "Israel should have exploited the repression of
the demonstrations in China,
when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions
among the Arabs of the territories."

51.
Former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir declares at a Tel Aviv memorial service
for former Likud leaders, November 1990. Jerusalem
Domestic Radio Service: "The past leaders of our movement left us a clear
message to keep Eretz Israel
from the Sea to the Jordan River for future
generations, for the mass aliya [immigration], and for the Jewish people, all
of whom will be gathered into this country."

52.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, quoted in Associated Press, November 16,
2000: "If we thought that instead of 200 Palestinian fatalities, 2,000
dead would put an end to the fighting at a stroke, we would use much more
force...."

53.Ben Gurion: In 1899, Davis Triestsch wrote to Herzl: " I would suggest to
you to come round in time to the "Greater Palestine" program before
it is too late... the Basle program must contain the words "Great
Palestine" or "Palestine and its neighboring lands" otherwise
it's nonsense. You do not get ten million Jews into a land of 25,000 Km2".
" The present map of Palestine
was drawn by the British mandate. The Jewish people have another map which our
youth and adults should strive to fulfill -- From the Nile to the Euphrates."

54.Vladimir Jabotinsky (the founder and advocate of the Zionist terrorist
organizations), Quoted by Maxime Rodinson in Peuple Juif ou Problem Juif.
(Jewish People or Jewish Problem): "Has any People ever been seen to give
up their territory of their own free will? In the same way, the Arabs of
Palestine will not renounce their sovereignty without violence."

We
enthusiastically chose to become a colonial society, ignoring international
treaties, expropriating lands, transferring settlers from Israel to the
occupied territories, engaging in theft and finding justification for all these
activities. Passionately desiring to keep the occupied territories, we
developed two judicial systems: one - progressive, liberal - in Israel; and the
other - cruel, injurious - in the occupied territories. In effect, we
established an apartheid regime in the occupied territories immediately
following their capture. That oppressive regime exists to this day.

BB: MOSSAD

BB: ADAM YAHIYE GADAHN: A Jew who pretended to have converted to Islam assumed different aliases.

BB:They Pretended to have converted to Islam, and started talking violently to smear Islam Muslims.

BB: They call themselves Jews though their ancestors never set foot in Palestine.

Our Little Earth - May We All Be Blessed!

Visitors Map

Flag Counter

Disclaimer

This blog is a personal blog written and edited by I, Aadel M
Al-Mahdy. For questions about this blog, please contact: Almahdyalerts@gmail.com. This blog
does not accept any form of advertising, sponsorship, or paid insertions. I
write for my own purposes. However, I may be influenced by my background;
occupation, religion, political attitude or experience.The owner of this blog
will never receive compensation in any way from this blog, neither will he be
compensated to provide opinion on products, services, websites and various
other topics. The views and opinions expressed on this blog are purely the blog
owner's. If I claim or appear to be experts on a certain topic or product or
service area, I will only endorse products or services that I believe, based on
my expertise, are worthy of such endorsement. Any product claim, statistic,
quote or other representation about a product or service should be verified
with the manufacturer or provider.This blog does not contain any content which
might present a conflict of interest.